WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/229 
16 September 2008 
 (08-4279) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ("CHINA") 
 
Questions from the United States to China 
 
concerning Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 15 September 2008, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Restrictions on trade in beef 
 
1. China continues to impose bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related restrictions on 
all imports of beef and beef products from the United States, despite the fact that the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) classified the United States as "controlled risk" for BSE in 
May 2007.  The OIE Code provides for conditions unde r which beef and beef products can be safely 
traded from all countries.  In the case of "controlle d risk" countries, the OIE recognizes that trade in 
beef and beef products and cattle of all ages from a "controlled risk" country is safe, provided that 
certain slaughter and beef processing conditions ar e met, including the removal of appropriate 
specified risk materials (SRMs) in a manner that avoids cross-contamination of meat.  As the OIE 
recognized by its classification of the United States as "controlled risk," the United States has satisfied 
these conditions by taking the following steps to mitigate BSE risk:  (a) appropriate removal of 
SRMs;  (b) implementation of an a ppropriate feed ban that has been  effectively enforced;  (c) an 
active surveillance program that has exceeded OIE requirements,  and (d) thorough epidemiological 
investigations of all BSE cases.  Since the May 2007 OIE classification of the United States as a "controlled risk" country, the governments of Canada , the Philippines, Indonesia, Barbados, Malaysia, 
Qatar, Ghana, Costa Rica and Belize have opened thei r markets to the full range of US beef and beef 
products consistent with OIE guidelines, recognizing that US BSE measures are effective.  To date, 
however, China has only offered to accept products  from animals that are under 30 months of age. 
(a) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China whether it had performed a risk assessment relevant to its BSE-related restrictions on impor ts of beef and beef produc ts from the United States as 
contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreemen t).  China did not respond to this 
question.  Please indicate whether China h as performed a relevant risk assessment 
and, if so, explain how that risk asses sment supports the measures that China is 
applying to US-origin beef and beef products.   
(b) Please explain China’s plans for opening its market to the full range of US beef and 
beef products consistent with OIE guide lines, as other WTO Members have done. G/SPS/W/229 
Page 2  
 
  BSE-related restrictions on other products 
 
2. China continues to impose additional BSE-relate d import restrictions on protein-free tallow.  
The OIE’s BSE chapter specifies that protein-free tall ow should be traded regardless of the BSE status 
of the exporting country without BSE-related restricti ons.  However, China continues to insist that the 
United States certify that the tallow not be pro cessed from certain SRMs, and that certain tallow 
processing methods commonly used in the United Stat es be prohibited.  Additionally, China insists 
that the United States certify that materials used to  produce tallow were not sourced from farms where 
a BSE-positive animal has been detected.  China’s position is not aligned w ith OIE guidelines and has 
effectively blocked imports of US -origin protein-free tallow.  The United States has provided China 
with several quantitative risk assessments that demo nstrate that any BSE-related risks associated with 
protein-free tallow are too small to calculate.  In conn ection with last year’s transitional review before 
this Committee, the United States asked China whethe r it had performed a risk assessment relevant to 
its BSE-related restrictions on imports of protein-free tallow from the United States, as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  China did not respond to this question.  Please indicate 
whether China has performed a relevant risk assessme nt and, if so, explain how that risk assessment 
supports the measures that China is applying to protein-free tallow.   
Pathogen standards 
 
3. The United States is concerned that China con tinues to de-list US poultry establishments, 
thereby preventing them from exporting their pr oducts to China, based on a zero-tolerance 
requirement for certain pathogens (e.g., Salmonella ) on raw meat and poultry products (see 
Standardization Administration of China (SAC) Nati onal Standard (GB) on Fr esh and Frozen Poultry 
Products (GB 16869-2005), effective 1 January 2006).  As the United States explained in connection 
with last year’s transitional review before this Committee, China’s policy is inconsistent with the 
Codex Alimentarius  (Codex) guidelines set forth in CAC/GL21–1997, Principles for the establishment 
and application of microbiological criteria for foods , Chapter 4.1.  In particular, in the case of 
pathogens like Salmonella , the zero-tolerance requirement enforc ed by China on imported products is 
not technically feasible under typical Good Manuf acturing Practices for poultry and therefore 
conflicts with the Codex guidelines.  The United States believes that a more effective food safety 
strategy involves the use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) that incorporate 
process control measures, good hygiene practices an d good manufacturing practices to reduce levels 
of Salmonella  as far as possible. Performance standards can be used to measure the effectiveness of 
the prevention strategies. As the United States has also  previously explained, it is concerned because 
the zero-tolerance requirement that China applies to  imports does not appear to be enforced against 
domestic products or domestic establishments.  This requirement therefore appears to be 
unnecessarily trade restrictive within the meaning of Article 5 of the SPS Agreement and raises 
serious national treatment concerns.   
(a) During last year’s transitional review before  this Committee, China explained that it 
was revising its sampling plans and microbi ological criteria for food-borne pathogens 
in order to make them identical to those of the International Commission of Microbiological Specifications for Foods (IC MSF).  China also i ndicated that these 
revisions would be completed in 2008.  Pl ease explain the status of this effort.  
(b) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China whether it applies its zero-tolerance requirement to domestically 
produced meat and poultry products.  China did not respond to this question.  Please 
indicate whether China applies its zero-to lerance requirement to domestically 
produced meat and poultry products.  If it does not, please explain how China’s 
ongoing review of domestic re gulatory controls will ensure conformity with its 
obligations under Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/W/229 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (c) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China to explain the procedures th at China would use if it were to revise 
a national standard such as GB 16869-2005.  China did not respond to this question.  Please explain these procedures. 
Residue standards 
 4. Since 2007, China has de-listed several US pork establishments due to a Chinese ban on 
ractopamine, a swine-feed ingredient, thereby pr eventing these establishments from exporting their 
products to China.  China’s ban on ractopamine is based on a blanket ban of a class of drugs called 
beta-agonists.  In bilateral meetings, China has acknowledged that it has imposed this ban without 
having performed a risk assessment to evaluate the risk of ractopamine to the human consumer.  The 
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of ractopamine in the United States in 1999.  Twenty-three countries in total have approved the use of ractopamine.  Additionally, the Joint 
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health  Organization Experts Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA), the international scientific advisory body to Codex, has estab lished an acceptable daily 
intake for residues of ractopamine, and has recommended that maximum residue levels for 
ractopamine can be safely established.  Codex, in  turn, has reviewed ractopamine and established a 
draft standard, based on JECFA’s recommendations. 
(a) Please explain why China banned ractopamine without first conducting a risk 
assessment.   
(b) In bilateral meetings during the fall of 2007, the United States learned that China 
finally intended to conduct a risk assessm ent for ractopamine and that it would be 
completed by February 2008.  The manufact urer subsequently submitted its safety 
data on ractopamine to China’s Ministry of Agriculture.  To date, however, it appears 
that China has not completed its risk assess ment.  When will China complete its risk 
assessment? 
(c) During last year’s transitional review before this Committee, China explained that 
consumption of pork treated by ractopamine could cause side-effects to the human heart and nervous system.  Please explain th e scientific basis for these assertions.  Are 
these assertions based solely on consumption of pork containing ractopamine in excess of the maximum residue levels recommended by JECFA? 
Avian influenza (AI)  
 
5. The United States is concerned about China’s con tinued actions with regard to incidents of 
low pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza (LPNA I) in the United States and, in particular, the 
ongoing suspension of poultry from Virginia and the import suspension in 2008 for poultry and poultry products originating from the State of Arkans as.  In the past, China had suspended imports of 
poultry and poultry products from six other St ates (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Nebraska) for LPNAI, but it recently removed the bans on those 
imports.  The United States has an open and transparent animal disease reporting system,  consistent with OIE guidelines, and a wealth of informa tion about animal disease oc currences in the United 
States is available via the Internet and other sour ces.  The United States urges China’s regulatory 
ministries to recognize and distinguish the different  disease risks associated with incidents of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and those of LPNAI  before taking actions that can have a negative 
impact on trade.  As the OIE confirms, substantia l scientific evidence exists to demonstrate that 
LPNAI presents no serious threat to human health a nd animal health.  In connection with last year’s 
transitional review before this Committee, th e United States submitted several questions about G/SPS/W/229 
Page 4  
 
  China’s AI bans, but China did not respond to an y of them.  The United States requests that China 
respond to the following questions duri ng this year’s transitional review: 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of impor ts of poultry and poultry products. 
(b) Has China performed any risk assessments re levant to its import suspension for 
poultry and poultry prod ucts originating from Virginia and Arkansas as identified 
above and as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If so, please 
explain how this risk assessment supports th e measures that China is applying.   If 
not, please explain the scientific rationale behind China’s current restrictions.   
6. China has also suspended the importation of heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products 
from Virginia and Arkansas for LPNAI.  Additionally , China does not allow the trans-shipment of 
poultry and poultry products (including heat-tr eated/cooked products) through these two States.  
China had imposed these same restrictions on the si x States identified above, for which China recently 
lifted its AI bans.  The OIE’s AI chapter clearly stat es that products that have been heat-treated in a 
manner to inactivate the virus should not be subject to an AI-related suspension. In connection with 
last year’s transitional review before this Comm ittee, the United States submitted several questions 
about China’s restrictions on heat-treated/cooked pro ducts, but China did not respond to any of them.  
The United States requests that China respond to the following questions during this year’s transitional review: 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of h eat-treated poultry and poultry products from 
Virginia and Arkansas. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment relevant to the extension of its import 
suspension to heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products originating from Virginia and Arkansas as contemplated by  Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If 
so, please explain how this risk assessmen t supports the measures that China is 
applying.  If not, please explain the scien tific rationale behind China’s current 
restrictions. 
(c) Has China conducted any risk assessments relative to suspending imports of US-
origin poultry and poultry products (includi ng heat-treated/cooked products) that are 
trans-shipped through Virginia and Arkansas as contemplated by Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement?  If so, please explain how this risk assessment supports the 
measures that China is applyi ng.   If not, please explain th e scientific rationale behind 
China’s current restrictions on Virginia and Arkansas.  
 
__________